If it's one thing that annoys me it's the lack of shots with people in. It's what these cameras are geared up to shoot in the mainstream. I intend to do some nice big ass portrait shots like on my site www.booheads.co.uk

I too would like to see that comparison. Since I have two 5D Mark III's I would be especially interested. Also maybe down the road there will be a good 1D X vs. 1D Mark IV comparions, seperate from this comparison (different needs test) for sports shots.

After the stunning high iso performance levels I'd started to think they really had some new magic through and through, but only in terms of light collection and not read noise as it turns out.

Just curious, what's about the read-noise? Is it on the same level as 5D Mark III has?Did you have a completely black RAW picture to perform your test?

It's a little better read noise per photosite than the 5D3, but only a trace, after normalizing 18MP vs 22MP. There is less banding though so even though it probably won't measure any better for DR and won't really have any practical advantage in the random read noise itself, it has much less vertical pattern banding and that should make the files more pliable than the 5D3 and 5D2 files, probably getting closer to the 1Ds3. It has a touch more horizontal banding than 5D3, which has none, but not too much at all, and much less vertical.

Yeah, total black frame.

It's more read noise per photosite than the 1D4 and, by a trace, the 1Ds3 but seems to have a lot less ugly pattern junk than the 1D4 so it may be a little better than the 1D4 in terms of actual real world usable DR.

briansquibb

It is interesting that the benchmark (Canon) for low noise at low iso is the 2007 1DS3.

Eyeballing the 2004 1DS2 I would say that is very close to the 1DS3, just of course that it is only 16mp. I would say the 1DS2 is a little better IQ than the 1D4 and looks like less noise (through DFINE).

Like everything, put an image through pp and the difference pretty much disappears on a 16x12 print

OK, so the read noise is slightly lower than I stated. It turns out the test files had a fast lens mounted and all the DSLRs cook the RAW gain books when they sense a lens faster than f/2.8 to make up for micro-lens losses from extreme angles (as fast glass provides).

So with a real, normal ISO100 black frame, no lens the actual true read noise at ISO100 on 1DX is 5.29 not 5.79 and the 8MP normalized DR (as per DxO) is then not 11.75 but 11.9 +/- about 0.1 depending on exact well depth (which I don't have recorded yet, and maybe +/- 0.2 if you also add copy variation into the mix).

OTOH the banding characteristics appear to be slightly worse than I had thought since this frame didn't lift past them quite as much. That said, the banding is still better than for all the recent banding messes from Canon of the last 3-4 years, better than 5D2,5D3,7D,1D4 but it's probably not quite as good as the 1Ds3, I'd need to go compare directly again though, so it's hard to say for sure, from I remember I think the 1Ds3 had less banding than the true 1DX ISO100 file. But as I said, I can say the 1DX, for sure, does have less banding than 5D3,5D2,7D,1D4 though so it's workable DR should be the best from Canon other than the 1Ds3 at slightly better.

OK, so the read noise is slightly lower than I stated. It turns out the test files had a fast lens mounted and all the DSLRs cook the RAW gain books when they sense a lens faster than f/2.8 to make up for micro-lens losses from extreme angles (as fast glass provides).

So with a real, normal ISO100 black frame, no lens the actual true read noise at ISO100 on 1DX is 5.29 not 5.79 and the 8MP normalized DR (as per DxO) is then not 11.75 but 11.9 +/- about 0.1 depending on exact well depth (which I don't have recorded yet, and maybe +/- 0.2 if you also add copy variation into the mix). Not that anyone will particularly notice a 0.15 stop difference in DR. but just to be legit about. It's about 1/3 stop more than my 5D3 and with less banding it probably has a solid 2/3 stop advantage usable DR ISO100 compared to my 5D3, hard to say, depends how much banding bothers you.

OTOH the banding characteristics appear to be slightly worse than I had thought since this frame didn't lift past them quite as much. That said, the banding is still better than for all the recent banding messes from Canon of the last 3-4 years, better than 5D2,5D3,7D,1D4 but it's probably not quite as good as the 1Ds3, I'd need to go compare directly again though, so it's hard to say for sure, from I remember I think the 1Ds3 had less banding than the true 1DX ISO100 file. But as I said, I can say the 1DX, for sure, does have less banding than 5D3,5D2,7D,1D4 though so it's workable DR should be the best from Canon other than the 1Ds3 at slightly better.

wouldn't a well lit and staged studio scene where you can control the lighting not really be much of a dynamic range test and especially not at all a low light king test though??? maybe a poorly setup and lit studio shot?

what you'd want is say some dark alley, barely there artificial lighting, model shot for the high iso and some uncontrolled, high DR landscape scene or something I'd think for the low ISO dr range comparison

wouldn't a well lit and staged studio scene where you can control the lighting not really be much of a dynamic range test and especially not at all a low light king test though??? maybe a poorly setup and lit studio shot?

Not at all.

You can easily get insane amounts of dynamic range in a scene in a studio. Just put a single light with a reflector on one side of the subject and nothing else.

And you can easily get low light in a studio; turn off the flash, turn off your working lights, and just use the modeling light of the flash turned down to whatever levels you need.

But the point is that it's all controlled, and you can easily yank the one camera off the tripod and put the other in its place, and use the exact same settings for both.

Quote

what you'd want is say some dark alley, barely there artificial lighting, model shot for the high iso and some uncontrolled, high DR landscape scene or something I'd think for the low ISO dr range comparison

Waaay too many variables. Especially in the landscape.

The great thing about the studio is that it lets you control all those -- both for consistency and so you can create exactly the test you want.

For example, if you want to see what the camera can do with a scene with ten stops of dynamic range, no problem -- just use a single light on, say, a Rubick's Cube on a piece of black flock velvet or suspended in midair. Use your meter to read at ISO 100 and f/32 on the lit face and f/1.0 on the shadowed face, and shoot away. Take a shot at f/32 and ISO 100, another at f/1.4 and ISO 200, and another at f/5.6 and ISO 100. (Getting that level of contrast will require a studio that isn't prone to bounce and possibly a bit of creative flagging / cutting as well.)

(And the observant photographer will read that suggestion of a test and understand why the proper answer to a scene with more dynamic range than a 5DIII's twelve-plus stops can capture is not, "Get a D800," but rather, "fix the light." Or, maybe, embrace the contrasty nature of the scene, rather than fight it -- let the highlights blow and crush the blacks!)

Cheers,

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

I agree with the original post that the low light ISO performance of the 1DX seem really good. It will be nice to compare them in similar condition with the 5D mkIII and D4 for example. Based on the sample I saw which are not the same condition as my shooting with a D4 I would say that indeed the 1DX is at least as good as the D4 for high ISO if not better. Since I don't shoot higher then 12800 it is hard for me to say. Both camera seem really close up to 12800 (D4 and 1DX I mean)...

One thing I could offer which would interest some is I found the D4 at least 1 stop better then the 5D mkIII in its ISO performance, so this says a lot on how the 1DX will likely perform..

You can easily get insane amounts of dynamic range in a scene in a studio. Just put a single light with a reflector on one side of the subject and nothing else.

And you can easily get low light in a studio; turn off the flash, turn off your working lights, and just use the modeling light of the flash turned down to whatever levels you need.

But the point is that it's all controlled, and you can easily yank the one camera off the tripod and put the other in its place, and use the exact same settings for both.

OK, I get your point. I thought you were meaning something else.

Quote

Quote

what you'd want is say some dark alley, barely there artificial lighting, model shot for the high iso and some uncontrolled, high DR landscape scene or something I'd think for the low ISO dr range comparison

Waaay too many variables. Especially in the landscape.

Yeah agreed, that is why it's easy to just to the black cap. Boom in like 60 seconds test carried out and done. No wasting of time and it's repeatable and you don't even need all teh bodies on hand at the same time (which is a biggie).